Miller: Expert Reactions

Editor’s Note: Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project invited a number of leading academics and practitioners to offer very short comments on the High Court’s decision on the process for triggering Article 50 in R(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We sought contributions from commentators with a range of views; some might be expected to be sympathetic to the Project’s central concerns, and others less so. In the days and weeks ahead, the Project will offer further and more detailed critiques of Miller.

If ever there is a case for interested ‘third’ parties to appear, or at least intervene through written submissions, now is the time for Professor John Finnis, the Judicial Power Project and other constitutional experts to present their views… Read more

Miller: The Bigger Picture

Irrespective of whether you agree with the judgment – and, for many of the reasons detailed by other contributors, I regard it as mistaken – there is something slightly quizzical about how the High Court answered the question…

The notion that Parliament needs the courts’ help to manage its relationship with Government actually undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty and wrongly puts unaccountable judges in overall control… Read more